In a bold stance, former President Rodrigo Duterte openly admitted to employing extrajudicial killings in his aggressive drug war campaign. With reckless abandon, he publicly declared that he had instructed law enforcement to induce suspects to resist arrest violently—thereby justifying the lethal response (nanlaban) of the police. He taunted the Senate, defiantly challenging their authority: “So what now? What are you going to do about it?”
Duterte’s confident defiance is grounded in the unwavering support of millions of loyal followers who view him as a strongman able to achieve peace and order by any means necessary. This steadfast base creates a political buffer for him; if the government were to charge Duterte and issue an arrest warrant, there is a palpable fear that his supporters would retaliate and revolt. This formidable alliance of loyalists, including key figures within the Senate and government, positions Duterte as an enduring political force that complicates any legal accountability for his administration’s actions during the drug war.
Yet Justice Secretary Crispin Remulla insists that the investigation must proceed, “let the axe fall where it may.” Upholding the rule of law is crucial. Without accountability, the Philippines remains vulnerable to populist demagogues who exploit penal populism—an approach where leaders promise to eradicate crime through extreme punitive measures, often disregarding established judicial processes. As criminologists John Pratt noted, penal populism thrives in environments where political figures mobilize public fear and frustration over crime, creating policies that prioritize punitive justice over due process and rehabilitation.
Penal populism and the Duterte Phenomenon
Penal populism emerged prominently during Duterte’s presidency, where a “tough on crime” rhetoric resonated with a populace frustrated by a perceived lack of safety and endemic government corruption. Political analysts have noted that the Philippines has historically leaned towards strongman figures during times of social and economic upheaval, as exemplified by the regime of Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s. Duterte’s popularity can be seen as a modern echo of this trend, one that exploits widespread fear of crime to galvanize support for authoritarian policies. Scholars such have explored how Duterte’s rhetoric aligns with a global trend of populist leaders who prioritize punitive over rehabilitative approaches to crime, promising quick fixes to complex social issues.
In the Philippines, penal populism finds fertile ground due to high crime rates and a fragmented judicial system, which has eroded public trust. Duterte’s anti-drug campaign was fueled by promises of swift justice, appealing to a frustrated citizenry willing to sacrifice civil liberties in exchange for security. However, scholars suggest this approach leads to a dangerous cycle where fear-driven policies perpetuate a culture of impunity, creating an environment where extrajudicial methods continuously go unabated.
The ongoing debate surrounding Duterte’s drug war also reflects broader struggles within the Philippine political landscape. Legal analysts emphasize that if Duterte and other key figures in his administration evade accountability, this sets a precedent where penal populism is not only tolerated but normalized. Philippine political history is replete with instances where rule of law was sidestepped, notably during the Martial Law era under Marcos. This repetition of history risks solidifying a pattern where political figures use populist appeal to erode institutional checks and balances, leaving the country susceptible to authoritarianism.
The Senate must pursue investigations without succumbing to the pressures of partisan loyalty or fear of destabilizing Duterte’s base. By doing so, it upholds the institutional strength necessary to deter future leaders from leveraging penal populism as a path to power. Failing to prosecute these abuses could regress the nation’s democratic progress, rendering it a “banana republic” in which legal processes are vulnerable to the whims of political leaders.
As such, penal populism, as popularized by Duterte’s drug war, has fostered a political environment where the rule of law is increasingly undermined. While Duterte’s base may continue to defend his actions, the commitment to justice and accountability must transcend these populist pressures. Upholding these principles is crucial to protecting the integrity of Philippine democracy and ensuring a legacy of lawful governance for future generations
Comments